>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 13:13:37 -0800 >From: mcpherso (John McPherson) >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >Subject: More on guns ... >Cc: libprofs [Here's one of the responses I got from a fellow libertarian, and an interesting question is raised: why is there such a high homicide rate today?] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In 1933 homicides in U. S. peaked at 9.7 per 100,000, a rate not matched again until 1989. The rate declined steadily from 1933 to an all time low of 4.5 in 1955-58 (see Series H 971-986, Historical Statistics of the U. S. - Bureau of the Census). During this same period, the number of guns in private hands steadily increased due to WW II and Korean war surplus and increasing prosperity. It is not logical to relate number of guns available to the homicide rate in the U. S. During the twenty-five years from 1933to 195, the gun supply increased while homicides declined a whopping 50%. To determine the reason for our present high homicide rate (10.0 in 1992, latest year recorded in 1995 U. S. Statistical Abstract), look for causes other than guns. Any ideas? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [My first guess is, of course, the government's prohibition on the manufacture, sale and use of so-called "drugs". I imagine we're all familiar here with the arguments that prohibition of highly desired substances produces a thriving black market that by definition operates outside of the legal system ... usually that by necessity is based on the willingness to use violence to settle disputes ... and of course the high profits caused by outlawing drugs serve as rich fuel for gang activities and rivalries. I would further guess that this same kind of effect operates at a lower level by outlawing all other victimless crimes. Beyond that, it appears to me, I'm sad to say, that it seems to have become almost "trendy" to engage in acts of violence ... perhaps we've just been so steeped in it lately that more and more people have come to see it as a "normal" response to something they don't like. If so, then perhaps it has become somewhat established in our "culture", in which case we may need to neutralize it at that level with popular stories, movies, TV shows, plays, etc. which promote libertarian meta-ethical values. It sure couldn't hurt.] -- John McPherson (mcpherso@lumina.ucsd.edu) * Host, San Diego Libertarian Email Network (posts to sdlp@lumina.ucsd.edu; admin: sdlp-request@lumina.ucsd.edu) ftp://lumina.ucsd.edu/pub/.../sdlp_dir/home.html ====================================================================== >Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 15:06:25 -0800 >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com >From: "Ken L. Holder" >In 1933 homicides in U. S. peaked at 9.7 per 100,000, a rate not matched >again until 1989. The rate declined steadily from 1933 to an all time low of >4.5 in 1955-58 Let's see ... 1933 was when the 21st amendment was ratified ... abolishing prohibition. Connection? :-) ====================================================================== >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 15:38:21 PST >From: bruce@magma.COM (Bruce Schoenleber) No doubt it is due to a large number of intertwined social factors, non of which have any relation to gun bearing vrs. non gun bearing. Here is one idea of a contributing factor. Look at the time range of the decline, 1933 -- 1958, from the early depression years to the post WWII height of the baby boom. At this point in time, 1958, there was still a strong sense of personal responsibility among the citizenry. The welfare state hadn't yet got a full head of steam. Look at the society now, very little sense of personal responsibility, I spilled coffee in my lap, its YOUR fault! As the government takes more and more control away from the individual, so also goes each individuals sense of self responsibility. Now, look at the demographics of increasing crime. If I believe the news reports, (I have no references to this point, so be wary) the fastest growing segment of violent crime is from youth. Is it a coincidence that this is also the age group that has grown up under a thriving welfare system, where responsibility is in the hand of the government, not the individual? If I am not responsible, then what is crime, and why should I worry about it? Having said all that, let me make the disclaimer that it is just from idle speculation. I have no credentials in either social or political science, nor do I have any references. Best regards, -bruce ====================================================================== >From: Covingtonc@aol.com >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 03:52:29 -0500 >To: mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >cc: libprofs John, the message you received states that murders peaked in 1933. Hmmm...the very year that prohibition ended. Wonder if there's a coincidence? :) You're right, of course, that the prohibition of drugs is the primary cause of the high murder rate in the U.S. today. Another reason for the high murder rate is the errant belief that it's wrong to kill murderous gangsters (especially if their minorities). If a gangster commits a violent crime and is subsequently killed, it's a good thing. However, I don't think that's a common judgement nowadays. I have lived in North Park/Hillcrest most of my life. I'm leaving next month for Leucadia. There are hooligans roaming the streets down here. They have dominion over the streets down here. Craig W. Covington covingtonc@aol.com ====================================================================== >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:13:48 -0500 >To: mcpherso (John McPherson) >From: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca (Jan Narveson) It must be possible to get some more definite statistics about the contribution of the drug laws; Benson & Rasmussen, Economic Anatomy of a Drug War, pp. 101-118 is instructive. Their study, however, wouldn't seem to suggest *that* dramatic an increase in murder rates. ====================================================================== >From: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:07:05 +0100 >To: Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >Cc: libprofs The belief/conviction among US libertarians is that drugs cause crime, since government forces the trade underground. In any black market, profits are so high (because of high risks) that those criminals that can command the most efficient violence tend to end up in command. Anyone that wants to enter that market can only do it with at least as efficient command of violence as those that already control it. But what if that is only a part of the explanation? Suppose that the "small-scale" crime that accompanies the drug trade actually is the dominant problem? And those crimes are committed by the consumers. That would indicate that the central problem would be that addicts end up in drug habits that they can't finance because of too modest incomes, only thru crime of low-level type (against ordinary citizens). In that case - liberalization of drugs would cause levels of crime, which we haven't yet experienced anywhere. Is there a rational and efficient role for government here - to defend the rule of law by prosecuting drug dealers (and consumers)? I think so - well knowing that I don't have many followers among my fellow libertarians. Anyway, give the idea some attention before you dismiss it Kurt Wickman ====================================================================== >Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 09:17:21 EST >From: Steven Horwitz >To: Liberty Professors >Subject: guns, drugs, and crime >From my perspective, a libertarian case against drug prohibition takes place on multiple fronts, and certainly both on the consumer and pro- ducer end. If small-scale drug *consumer* crime is the predominant problem, there is reason to believe that legalization would address that too. The risks associated with the illegality of drug use drive up the prices. Street prices must include all of the side payments to keep law enforcement away, the cost of "private" protection, as well as some probablilzed risk premium in case the seller is caught. All of these have the same effects as gov't regulations on any other product (e.g., mandatory safety devices on cars) - they drive up the price. If drugs were legalized, one would expect most of these costs to disappear and one would also expect various economies of scale to take over as the production of drugs was taken over by larger and larger enterprises. Both of these would cause drug prices to fall, reducing the need for drug consumers to commit crimes to support their habits. After all, despite all of the regulations and taxes that increase its price, we don't hear much about crazed drunks committing crimes to support their habit. It would be interesting to know if such crimes did occur during Prohibition. Steven Horwitz Eggleston Associate Professor of Economics St. Lawrence University Canton, NY 13617 TEL (315) 379-5731 FAX (315) 379-5819 EMAIL shor@music.stlawu.edu ====================================================================== >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 07:24:03 -0700 >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com >From: markm@desktop.tyrell.com (Mark F. Murphy) Kurt sez: >But what if that is only a part of the explanation? Suppose that the >"small-scale" crime that accompanies the drug trade actually is the dominant >problem? And those crimes are committed by the consumers. That would indicate >that the central problem would be that addicts end up in drug habits that they >can't finance because of too modest incomes, only thru crime of low-level type >(against ordinary citizens). In that case - liberalization of drugs would >cause >levels of crime, which we haven't yet experienced anywhere. Is there a >rational >and efficient role for government here - to defend the rule of law by >prosecuting drug dealers (and consumers)? I think so - well knowing that I >>don't have many followers among my fellow libertarians. The only thing govt is to do is protect our person and property... it doesn't matter the reason the crime was committed. So yes... govt would be used to prosecute ANYONE (regardless of whether they are drug users or not) who commits any type of crime (murder, rape, theft, vandelism, etc). mark --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development, Tyrell (markm@tyrell.com) Sysop, The Desktop BBS (Macintosh) 714-491-1003 1996 Libertarian Congressional Candidate, 45th District Chair Emeritus, Orange County Libertarian Party (CA) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, libprofs >From: "Aeon Skoble" >Date: 9 Dec 95 10:51:45 CST6CDT You will need to ignore the drug connection, I think. If someone robs your house to buy crack, that's no more evil than if they rob your house to buy a new car. The fact they spend their stolen money on self-destructive pursuits isn't what makes their stealing wrong, it's the fact that they're stealing. So whatever law-enforcement you think is appropriate to protect people's rights will do so regardless of the criminal's motive. As legalizing drugs would almost certainly drive the price down, users would have less need to steal. So the fatc that users commit crimes is actually a plus for the pro- legalization argument. ====================================================================== >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 09:17:12 -0800 (PST) >From: John Wilkes >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Cc: Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, libprofs On Sat, 9 Dec 1995 kurt@wickman.pp.se wrote: > (against ordinary citizens). In that case - liberalization of drugs would > cause levels of crime, which we haven't yet experienced anywhere. Is > there a rational and efficient role for government here - to defend the > rule of law by prosecuting drug dealers (and consumers)? I think so - > well knowing that I don't have many followers among my fellow > libertarians. Anyway, give the idea some attention before you dismiss it Absolutely. And let's also go after television manufacturers, jewelers, electronic gadgetry salesmen, and luxury car makers while we're at it. After all, the desire to purchase such expensive things often leads to crime, and isn't it the job of government to protect us from such things??? Liberty, John Wilkes inet: wilkes@ekrl.com (home) | wilkes@Wilkes.COM (laptop) | The Constitution: wilkes@CetiInc.com (business) | the REAL contract for America. usps: Box 2230; Aptos, California | icbm: 37 02 30 N / 121 48 45 W | ====================================================================== >From: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 20:20:49 +0100 >Subject: Re: guns, drugs, and crime >To: Steven Horwitz , Liberty Professors Thanks for the many views I've received on the legalization/liberalization issue on drugs. Everyone wants to legalize - maybe the question is finally solved by US libertarians, though not in Europe. Let me pursue my argument just a little more. I realize that the risk (and protection) costs would go down quite substantially and that some drugs would be no more costly than tobacco, if legalization occurred. I am also - like all libertarians - a firm believer in the individual's free choice asf. But just how would a legalized drug market organize itself? Demand and supply would make some drugs in excess supply, others in excess demand, with prices staying high for some drugs, falling for others. Should e g heroin be traded? Or a number of drugs that break down the body constitution in a very short time? If not, how is the "legalization" barrier defined? Even if some drugs would be cheap, not all would - and for drug addicts that would use e g opium, the entire cost-benefit calculus of committing a crime is corrupted. The abstension process is so hard, that opium addicts have been known to commit suicide, if they can no longer get opium. The benefits of getting opium are obviously so high that murder (the cost is the risk of being sent to jail for it) is no obvious barrier for such people. It is my belief that the crime rate would go up quite substantially, even with legalized drugs. The secondary crimes (drug-related crimes, burglary, theft asf) would probably rise the most. I might well be wrong - does anyone know of studies of the Far East drug trade up until the 1950s. That is probably as close to a free market for drugs as the world has ever experienced. As a member of a society where many people would use heavy drugs, I would like to know that my family would get full protection - taxes for police protection would probably go up. And probably general hospital costs - where, at least in Europe, a large part of them would be financed thru taxes. We are talking about a very general use, in the case of legalization. Still wondering about consequences Kurt Wickman (Sweden) ====================================================================== >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 15:36:56 -0500 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >cc: libprofs In a message dated 95-12-09 05:07:47 EST, kurt@wickman.pp.se writes: > [defending the drug war] In a previous message I said I would send a piece I did opposing the drug war. Here it is. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Richard Rider's Thoughts on Drug Legalization 4 July, 1994 Some people feel that the solution to the drug problem is to become like Iran and other totalitarian countries: crack down hard on drugs (and porn and deviant sex habits and on and on), institute a death penalty for users and sellers, and repeal the Bill of Rights where drug violations are involved. Perhaps they are partially right -- kill a few hundred thousand people and we can significantly reduce drug use in our society. But the country will not be the America that our Founding Fathers set up. Furthermore, I doubt that we can put the drug genie back in the bottle. Over 30,000,000 Americans have used illegal drugs. Malaysia has the drug death penalty and still has over 300,000 addicts getting their product. After all, if we can't keep drugs out of our prisons, how do we ever plan to keep drugs out of the whole country? But even if it would work, I would oppose such an approach. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security will end up with neither. As a parent of two young boys, I have the same concerns that all thinking parents have for their children and the temptation of drugs. I know that my children will be approached by drug dealers in school. But I also know that no one will sidle up to my kid and try to get him to buy a pack of Marlboros or a fifth of Jack Daniels. Why? Because there is no excess profit in dealing in legal drugs, even though they are illegal for minors to use. The key to understanding the drug problem is to realize that the huge profits (a 12,500% markup in cocaine, for example) are the direct result of prohibition. Most of the problems we ascribe to the "drug problem" are really the problem of prohibition. A $1 a day drug habit becomes under prohibition a $100 habit, and crime will inevitably result on both the buyers' and sellers' part. There are only three ways a drug addict can afford to pay the high prices of illegal drugs: 1. You can sell your body. The major cause of prostitution -- male and female, teenage and adult -- is drug addiction. 2. You can steal from others. When I debated county supervisor George Bailey on the Roger Hedgecock radio show (about the jail sales tax), Mr. Bailey said that 80% of all property crime (mugging, robbery,burglary and car theft) in San Diego is committed by drug addicts trying to get money for drugs. The lowest figure mentioned by law enforcement agencies is 40%, and 60% is normal for urban areas. 3. This third method is perhaps the most harmful of all -- become what I call a member of a perverse version of the Amway multi-level selling system. Become a dealer, hook your friends and expand the drug problem. Let's legalize drugs and eliminate such problems. We will still have the medical and social problem of drug abuse. But look at the benefits of drug legalization: 1. Drastically reduce property crime (burglaries, auto thefts, muggings and commercial robberies). Estimates start at 40%. 2. Greatly reduce the corruption of our law enforcement people. 3. Relieve our overburdened court system. 4. Relieve the overcrowding in our jails. Our country now provides the highest per capita incarceration of any country in the world (we recently passed the former USSR and South Africa). 5. End the routine drug shootings of dealers and bystanders over turf wars and drug deal ripoffs. You don't see 7-11 shooting it out with AM/PM over who gets to sell alcohol at an intersection. 6. Destroy the multi-level marketing scheme that fills our schools and playgrounds with children selling drugs. 7. Destroy the financial power of the hoodlum gangs and drug lords. 8. Reduce the desperate acts of prostitution to acquire overpriced drugs. 9. Greatly reduce the overdoses from ingesting unknown impurities cut with unknown materials. An estimated 80% of the 3,500 annual illegal drug deaths are caused by these two factors. 10. Halt the spread of AIDS and other diseases from sharing scarce prohibited needles. 11. Return to a respect for the Bill of Rights with its emphasis on due process and a right to privacy. 12. End the onerous civil asset forfeiture program, which trashes our constitutional rights by requiring the accused to prove his innocence rather than the state to prove guilt. 13. End government's Big Brother monitoring of our financial transactions under the guise of seeking "drug money." 14. Reduce our international balance of payments problem. 15. End our inadvertent funding of the communist movements in Latin America (our drug money is used to buy protection for the drug lords and farmers in South America). 16. End our meddling in other countries' affairs in our vain attempt to curtail drug imports to the US. Significant savings to future military budgets should result. 17. Allow companies to design safer, less potent drugs. Note the drop in potency in the "legal" harmful drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Illegal drugs, however, become even more potent since a more compact product is easier to smuggle and carries no greater penalty if caught. 18. Stop persecuting people for private actions that, while they may harm themselves, do not harm others. Understand, with this freedom will come increased responsibility for one's actions. We Libertarians come down much harder than the current law on drunk drivers, robbers, etc. who harm others and then claim diminished capacity. No "Twinky defense" would be allowed. If you harm others, you would face both criminal penalties and restitution responsibilities. Prohibition creates far more problems than drug abuse. End the drug war. ====================================================================== >From: DRider@aol.com >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 15:36:52 -0500 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >cc: libprofs In a message dated 95-12-09 05:07:47 EST, kurt@wickman.pp.se writes: >The belief/conviction among US libertarians is that drugs cause crime, since >government forces the trade underground. In any black market, profits are so >high (because of high risks) that those criminals that can command the most >efficient violence tend to end up in command. Anyone that wants to enter that >market can only do it with at least as efficient command of violence as those >that already control it. > >But what if that is only a part of the explanation? Suppose that the >"small-scale" crime that accompanies the drug trade actually is the dominant >problem? And those crimes are committed by the consumers. That would indicate >that the central problem would be that addicts end up in drug habits that they >can't finance because of too modest incomes, only thru crime of low-level type >(against ordinary citizens). In that case - liberalization of drugs would cause >levels of crime, which we haven't yet experienced anywhere. Is there a rational >and efficient role for government here - to defend the rule of law by >prosecuting drug dealers (and consumers)? I think so - well knowing that I don't >have many followers among my fellow libertarians. >Anyway, give the idea some attention before you dismiss it >Kurt Wickman You're quite right and dead wrong. Most property crime (muggings, burglaries, car thefts, etc.) [not to mention both teenage and adult prostitution] is indeed caused by addicts seeking money for illegal drugs. But the drugs are unaffordable precisely because they are illegal! To pay the drug suppliers at every level for their risky (jail time, force required to seal contracts, etc) enterprise, the market forces a premium price. Illegal drugs are 30 to 100 times their "free market" (legal market) price precisely because of the risks. Legalize (decriminalize) drugs and the price drops dramatically, eliminating the crime associated with drug addicts. The most addictive (hardest to kick) drug in America is nicotine (according to the San Diego Council for Drug and Alcohol Abuse). But where is the massive crime wave by nicotine addicts stealing for their habit? Former U.S. Attorney General C. Everett Koop stated before an inquiring Congressional committee that, if we ban cigarettes, we will see nicotine addicts turn to crime to pay for their expensive black market cigarettes, just like heroin addicts. In Detroit in the 1970's the police chief decided his force should stop arresting street sellers of illegal drugs. The price of street drugs dropped dramatically and crime plummeted. Public pressure to resume such arrests forced a reversal of that policy. Prices soared back up and so did crime. I will post a piece I did a while back on this topic. And I offer a standing challenge to debate anyone who wants to oppose drug legalization in a pubic forum (not the internet). Only problem is getting anyone to defend the drug war. The drug war is indefensible. Richard Rider ====================================================================== >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 13:10:54 -0800 (PST) >From: David Harmon >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >cc: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com On Sat, 9 Dec 1995 kurt@wickman.pp.se wrote: > that the central problem would be that addicts end up in drug habits that they > can't finance because of too modest incomes, only thru crime of low-level type > (against ordinary citizens). In that case - liberalization of drugs would cause It's not just that prohibited drugs are more expensive. Users of the banned drugs are discriminated against when it comes to finding and keeping honest work, in a way that users of legal drugs are not. ====================================================================== >From: EWCHIEF@aol.com >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 17:26:22 -0500 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >cc: libprofs Kurt Wickham's thoughts that a more liberal policy on drugs might increase crime and wondering if there is a continuing need for government intervention does beg some discussion. First, examine the how drugs become "accepted" ( i.e. the police stop prosecuting individuals that are using them perhaps like in San Francisco where medical use of POT is virtually ignored) To be an argument this has to have a bent toward assuming that in general all drugs would get this kind of treatment and then more individuals would use various drugs if the penalty portion was negated. This also assumes that a larger number of people are predisposed to use drugs than presently do and simply the fear of prosecution stops them from using. This might be true, and could certainly be argued for cases involving otherwise timid, or experimental users. However, many of these new people entering the market if choosing a drug that is both addictive and typically very expensive to use habitually would have to make a decision concerning probable prosecution eventually. This is because these drugs quickly force ordinary people to steal or deal to maintain their usage. This implied acceptability toward personal usage does not necessary mean that the pursuit of the "pusher" would be ignored and therefore the "risk" would still keep the price inflated and that would be the only reason why the supply side might enlarge initially. A quick snap shot of the present supply will make it evident that price would stay up. The drugs available right this second have been purchased at these inflated prices and no one sells drugs to lose money so the price dropping immediately even with non prosecution is not reasonable unless the product was adulterated to increase the supply at lower prices. The crime rate against citizens would not necessarily come down under these parameters since present users in either case must "Score" sufficient quality or quantify to support a habit that in our society is not ordinarily maintained with a legitimate job. The exception being very wealthy people who don't have to punch a clock or take drug tests. A good example of these are rock stars whose cash flow keeps them out of 7-11's at three in the morning armed with a gun, or a knife, or just feigning that they have either, and safely at home sucking on that pipe or pushing that needle into their arm. The crimes against police officers would drop significantly since they are no longer placing themselves in harm's way to provoke a user to flight or fight and it will be assumed that they would not be knocking down people's doors at four in the morning hoping to confiscate their property. Cutting to the chase concerning national (legislative) acceptance of drug use however, the final scenario above is exactly the reason why drugs will continue to be illegal and why more substances are being placed on the "controlled substance" list all the time. The government at ALL levels profits from making and keeping substances' illegal. The higher crime means more policemen to patrol, more guards to guard, more lawyers, bureaucracy and courts and less grumbling by the public concerning the overall state of our Nation since crime gives everyone more to think about and newspapers to write about than why we have this problem and what our leaders are actually doing to cause it. Any law enforcement type will tell you, if they're being honest (and when pigs fly) that's there's just too much money in the present system to ever return to national sanity if they have anything to do about it. In a recently televised interview with a former policeman that is now doing 12 years for theft, drug dealing etc. he stated unabashedly that the entire law enforcement system of his city is corrupt to the core and to the highest levels due to the money. He said that the saying was to "leave work better off than you were when you got there", meaning improving your cash, dope, sex or stereo situation with every shift. I personally doubt that the majority of any state's, city's or town's law enforcement personnel are not at this point, more entitled to be behind bars than the people they are arresting daily. This culpability works out just fine for others in government, perhaps equally unlawful in the discharge of their sworn duties, who will one day ask these legions of uniformed criminals to act against the citizens at large, perhaps in a national disarmament. Don De Groat Chairman, LPCC District 50 Modesto, California ====================================================================== >Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 17:43:54 EST >From: Steven Horwitz >To: Liberty Professors Kurt writes: >But just how would a legalized drug market organize itself? Demand and supply >would make some drugs in excess supply, others in excess demand, with prices >staying high for some drugs, falling for others. Should e g heroin be traded? O I don't follow this at all. Why wouldn't the same market forces that are at work for other goods and services work here too? If excess demand was keeping prices high, this will entice more producers into the market, expanding supply and driving price back down, with the parallel effects for excess supply. The only reason prices wouldn't respond (or producers wouldn't) would be due to regulation. >As a member of a society where many people would use heavy drugs, I would like This seems to me to be your faulty assumption. Why would you expect there to be an explosion in the use of drugs simply because they're legalized? Most studies suggest that drug use isn't very price- sensitive, so the lower price won't bring many new users in. The progressive rise in marijuana prices over the last ten years hasn't seemed to scare too many people out. That's why supply side "wars on drugs" don't work - they simply raise the price by adding to the costs of production I mentioned earlier. Given the price-insensitivity of most users, the quantity demanded doesn't fall very much, but user- driven crime increases. My personal guess would be that we would see drugs out there with much lower potency that people used perhaps somewhat more. One of the worst effects of prohibition (of both alcohol and drugs) is that it makes highly-concentrated products more cost effective - bathtub gin, crack cocaine, and the highly publicized increase in THC levels in street marijuana are perfect examples. Many of the problems of addiction are really problems of prohibition. >would probably go up. And probably general hospital costs - where, at least in >Europe, a large part of them would be financed thru taxes. We are talking about Well, whose fault is that? ;) and isn't the answer obvious? I would recommend Mark Thornton's book on the economics of prohibition for more on this. I don't have the exact reference handy, however. Steven Horwitz Eggleston Associate Professor of Economics St. Lawrence University Canton, NY 13617 TEL (315) 379-5731 FAX (315) 379-5819 EMAIL shor@music.stlawu.edu ====================================================================== >From: BESommer@aol.com >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 17:57:44 -0500 >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com >cc: kurt@wickman.pp.se > But what if that is only a part of the explanation? Suppose that the > "small-scale" crime that accompanies the drug trade actually is the > dominant problem? And those crimes are committed by the consumers. > That would indicate that the central problem would be that addicts > end up in drug habits that they can't finance because of too modest > incomes, only thru crime of low-level type (against ordinary > citizens). In that case - liberalization of drugs would cause levels > of crime, which we haven't yet experienced anywhere. Is there a > rational and efficient role for government here - to defend the rule > of law by prosecuting drug dealers (and consumers)? I think so - well > knowing that I don't have many followers among my fellow > libertarians. Anyway, give the idea some attention before you dismiss it This argument doesn't quite add up when you consider that these very drugs wen legalized would be as inexpensive as cigarettes presently are - even with all the added taxes. And with nicotine allegedly being as addictive as heroin, how many people do you see resorting to crime to maintain their cigarette habit? ----- Bruce Sommer Santa Clara County Libertarian Party BESommer@aol.com ====================================================================== >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 95 21:10:10 -0800 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >From: sbieser@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) >Cc: libprofs At 11:07 AM 12/9/95, kurt@wickman.pp.se wrote: >The belief/conviction among US libertarians is that drugs cause crime, since >government forces the trade underground. In any black market, profits are so >high (because of high risks) that those criminals that can command the most >efficient violence tend to end up in command. Anyone that wants to enter that >market can only do it with at least as efficient command of violence as those >that already control it. > >But what if that is only a part of the explanation? Suppose that the >"small-scale" crime that accompanies the drug trade actually is the dominant >problem? And those crimes are committed by the consumers. That would indicate >that the central problem would be that addicts end up in drug habits that they >can't finance because of too modest incomes, only thru crime of low-level type >(against ordinary citizens). In that case - liberalization of drugs would cause >levels of crime, which we haven't yet experienced anywhere. Is there a >rational >and efficient role for government here - to defend the rule of law by >prosecuting drug dealers (and consumers)? I think so - well knowing that I don't >have many followers among my fellow libertarians. >Anyway, give the idea some attention before you dismiss it >Kurt Wickman The other part of the argument is that drug prohibition causes the price of drugs to be several times higher than they would be in a free market, because distributors have to pass on the costs of evading drug laws, and free competition doesn't normally exist in a black market. So a junkie with a $200/day habit under drug prohibition would most likely have a $10/day habit in a free society. There are much, much fewer people who would be compelled to steal to support a $10/day habit than a $200/day habit, and those who would steal anyway would not need to do so nearly as often. I am curious why you consider yourself a libertarian, since you disagree with the non-aggression axiom? ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* Scott Bieser "Art is about making something out of nothing, Animaniac and then selling it." sbieser@deltanet.com -- Frank Zappa ====================================================================== >From: Pierre_Lemieux@UQAH.UQuebec.CA >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 95 00:32:59 -0500 >Subject: Drugs >To: libprofs I have read somewhere -- but not checked -- that drug prohibition is, at least in France (and other European countries?),a relatively recent phenomenon from the 30's or 40's. Does anybody know anything about this? If true, the case for drug liberalization would be settled as far as its utilitarian aspects are concerned. P.L. PS: Thanks to those of you who voted for my site at the Web d'Or contest. I realize how easy it is to become a politician, and that I have at least 36 friends in the world. Yet, I could use a few more votes... Go http://clipper.csc.uvic.ca/Pierre_Lemieux, in the "What's new..." section. I have also listed, in another category, the Amis de la Liberte site (http://clipper.csc.uvic.ca/Amis_Liberty), and one can vote for both these great sites. ====================================================================== >From: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 10:56:27 +0100 >To: sbieser@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser), kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >Cc: libprofs Why am I a libertarian, since I don't share all your views? Because I believe in a minimal state - but among the things that the state shall do is to handle crime. If it can be shown that drugs cause an explosion of violent crime, I think it would be negligent to keep the issue out of the discussion. All the best Kurt Wickman ====================================================================== >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 05:02:21 -0800 >From: slagle@sgi523.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >CC: Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, libprofs ::kurt@wickman.pp.se writes: > But what if that is only a part of the explanation? Suppose > that the "small-scale" crime that accompanies the drug trade > actually is the dominant problem? And those crimes are > committed by the consumers. That would indicate that the > central problem would be that addicts end up in drug habits > that they can't finance because of too modest incomes, only > thru crime of low-level type (against ordinary citizens). In > that case - liberalization of drugs would cause levels of > crime, which we haven't yet experienced anywhere. Is there a > rational and efficient role for government here - to defend the > rule of law by prosecuting drug dealers (and consumers)? I > think so - well knowing that I don't have many followers among > my fellow libertarians. Anyway, give the idea some attention > before you dismiss it Kurt Wickman 1) In the absence of prohibition, with its black market inflation of drug costs, a junkie could keep himself in a more or less permanent stupor for something under a dollar a day. This would reduce the need for small scale crime to finance the habit. 2) In the absence of prohibition, police, the courts, and the prison system could be redeployed toward a more effective fight against actual criminal acts, even the small-scale ones. 3) In the absence of prohibition, drug users would be more likely to be able to seek medical and psychological attention for their problem, and also to maintain legitimate employment of some sort without the stigma of criminality attached to their drug use. 4) With or without prohibition, doesn't it make more sense to use limited criminal justice resources for fighting real crime instead of diluting the effort by chasing junkies around? Prosecute the real crimes, not the "crime" of disagreeing with the authorities about the utility and efficacy of illicit medications. =Mark ---- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088 ====================================================================== >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 06:42:33 -0700 >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com >From: markm@desktop.tyrell.com (Mark F. Murphy) >Cc: kurt@wickman.pp.se Kurt Wickman sez: >Why am I a libertarian, since I don't share all your views? Because I believe >in a minimal state - but among the things that the state shall do is to handle >crime. If it can be shown that drugs cause an explosion of violent crime, I >think it would be negligent to keep the issue out of the discussion. But Kurt... Libertarians believe that govt's ONLY legitimate function is to protect people and their property. While Libertarians would support some sort of jail time or restitution for a crime committed, they would not support trying indirect methods do stop said crime. For example... There are many deaths and crime committed with guns each year. Libertarians support the right to keep and bear arms for self protection and jail time or restitution for those who commit murder or a crime wioth a gun. Many people are killed in car accidents each year. Libertarians do not support removing cars from the streets to make them more safe. The point is Kurt, govt does not exists to try to make the world more safe for us. It exists to be the third party we can go to when someone has committed a crime against us... when the crime has been committed, not before. Govt's purpose is not to try to make the world a safe and happy place (utopia). So Kurt, it doesn't matter why someone would commit a crime (in the case you present, drugs)... what matters is that the crime was committed and the offender needs to be jailed or pay restitution. mark --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development, Tyrell (markm@tyrell.com) Sysop, The Desktop BBS (Macintosh) 714-491-1003 1996 Libertarian Congressional Candidate, 45th District Chair Emeritus, Orange County Libertarian Party (CA) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== >From: DRider@aol.com >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 10:42:37 -0500 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, sbieser@deltanet.com, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >cc: libprofs In a message dated 95-12-10 04:56:37 EST, kurt@wickman.pp.se writes: > If it can be shown that drugs cause an explosion of violent crime, I >think it would be negligent to keep the issue out of the discussion. Drug PROHIBITION causes that "explosion of violent crime." The drug police most associate with violent behavior is ALCOHOL. Should we ban alcohol? Richard Rider ====================================================================== >From: Covingtonc@aol.com >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 20:03:05 -0500 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, sdlp The reason that the principle of non-agression works is because it is based on natural law. Everything that follows the nature of the human animal (including human conduct), works to sustain the community. It is natural for humans to want to live happily, peacefully, and fruitfully. The opposite occurs most often due to societies founded on irrational ideas. They cannot endure. It cannot been shown that the legalization of drugs would cause an increase in crime, because that premise is irrational. Kurt, read the responses to your first posting. The evidence weighs in against you and your argument. A person cannot be a Libertarian if you reject the core premise of the Libertarian philosophy. Moreover, you cannot have a good view of humans if you think that society will crumble without a beneficient protector. The premise of your argument is that humans are born evil or stupid. What value can possibly be gained from that premise? Craig ====================================================================== >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 95 18:50:39 -0800 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >From: sbieser@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) >Cc: libprofs At 10:56 AM 12/10/95, kurt@wickman.pp.se wrote: >Why am I a libertarian, since I don't share all your views? Because I >believe in >a minimal state - but among the things that the state shall do is to handle >crime. If it can be shown that drugs cause an explosion of violent crime, I >think it would be negligent to keep the issue out of the discussion. >All the best >Kurt Wickman I think it can be demonstrated clearly that the causative links between psychoactive drugs and violent crime are, with a few exceptions, the effects of drug *prohibition* rather than the pharmacological properties of the drugs being prohibited. And in the cases of those substances which directly lead their users to violence, we must consider the black-market violence and collateral damage to people's liberties (such as the right to free and secure financial transactions) which prohibition will entail before we take it seriously as a policy. Most libertarians I have met in the last 20 years subscribe to some variation of the "non-aggression principle," which holds that it is always, in every circumstance, immoral (or impractical in the long run) to *initiate* force against a person, or use fraudulent means to deprive him/her of life, limb or property. This leaves us open to use force defensively or in measured retaliation against others who have initiated force or fraud. We support a minimal state because we believe this is the regime most likely to minimize aggression, and we *define* a minimal state in these terms. A government which tells individuals what chemicals they may or may not consume is not "minimal," because it has crossed the line from using defensive or retailiatory force, into initiating force presumably because of something someone might do in the future. And I don't think libertarians in general can be accused of trying to keep the drugs-and-crime topic out of the discussion. Most of our introductory literature covers it. We talk about it quite a lot. But your answer didn't really strike at the heart of what I was really trying to ask, so I'd like to follow up with two questions: Why do you believe in a minimal state? And what, to you, distinguishes a minimal state from a non-minimal state? ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* Scott Bieser "Art is about making something out of nothing, Animaniac and then selling it." sbieser@deltanet.com -- Frank Zappa ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 00:15:26 -0800 >From: George L Roman >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >CC: sbieser@deltanet.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, libprofs >Subject: Re: Drugs cause evil (was: More on guns) kurt@wickman.pp.se writes: > Why am I a libertarian, since I don't share all your views? Because I > believe in a minimal state - but among the things that the state shall > do is to handle crime. If it can be shown that drugs cause an explosion > of violent crime, I think it would be negligent to keep the issue out of > the discussion. As a true statist would say: drugs don't cause crime; freedom does. And he'd be right. -george ------------- If you say "Would there were no wine" because of the drunkards, then you must say, going on by degrees, "Would there were no steel," because of the murderers, "Would there were no night," because of the thieves, "Would there were no light," because of the informers, and "Would there were no women," because of adultery. [St. John Chrysostom: Homilies, c. 388] ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 12:10:56 +0100 >To: George L Roman , kurt@wickman.pp.se >Cc: sbieser@deltanet.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, libprofs Freedom causes crime - not drugs. This is nothing but the most shallow thinking you can meet in this highly problematic discussion. Freedom does not cause crime, it is a high goal for most people trying to live together in a society - freedom is, on the contrary, threatened by crime. Drugs cause crime, I am surprised that anyone would deny that. The real issue here is a trade-off issue: are the probable costs of crime following legalization of drugs higher than the benefits of enjoying the freedom to trade drugs without police inspection? There are more arguments in formulating the trade-off, but take this as the inprecise, fundamental formulation. Has it ever occurred to you to ask why most people - also freedom-loving people - are not in favor of legalizing. Are they all stupid? Or what is the correct answer to that question? All the best to you - and keep thinking about this Kurt Wickman (Sweden) ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 12:50:21 +0100 >To: sbieser@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser), kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >Cc: libprofs Your arguments really strike at the most fundamental aspects of political philosophy. It would probably take me a book to formulate the answer well. Maybe I'll write it someday. But not now. I think that the drugs issue can be discussed without re-formulating fundamental beliefs. Let me say only this. If people are "social animals" - which I think we are - a number of rules must be upheld (by unpartial authorities) to make it possible to live together in societies. These rules must be formulated from such principles that freedom for every individual is the biggest possible. But every rule implies some loss of freedom for individuals or groups of individuals - you may not harm others, is one example that restrains power-hungry or sadistic people in society. If there were to be a chemical substance that would lead the consumers to harm others, I think that it should be banned by the central authority. There are to me aspects of drugs that are tangential to this mythical harms-provoking drug. This is not an answer to your questions, I realize that, but it is a more general statement of my view on drugs than I have tried before in this discussion. I realize that I might be the only one on the group that thinks in this way. But I find one possible implication of your questions troubling - though I am sure that you don't mean that: if someone is not 100 per cent in agreement with me, his entire philosophy must be wrong or at least suspicious. All the best Kurt Wickman ====================================================================== >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, libprofs >From: "Aeon Skoble" >Date: 11 Dec 95 08:18:56 CST6CDT > Drugs cause crime No, drugs lack the intentionality to play a causal role in violating people's rights. A vial of crack cannot violate a person's rights. Only another person can violate a person's rights. > Has it ever occurred to you to ask why most people - also freedom-loving people > - are not in favor of legalizing. Are they all stupid? No, but enough of them are. ====================================================================== >From: Fred Foldvary >Subject: ethical vs. physical freedom >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:20:09 -0500 (EST) >Cc: libprofs Kurt Wickman wrote: > ... But every rule > implies some loss of freedom for individuals... May I suggest that you qualify "freedom" when you use the term. Physical freedom is the absence of physical restraints. Ethical freedom is the absence of legal restraints on peaceful and honest action. So every rule implies some potential loss of physical freedom for individuals who violate the rule and get caught. Rules prohibiting harm to others do not imply a loss of ethical freedom. > If there were a chemical substance that would lead the consumers to harm > others, I think that it should be banned by the central authority. Can you name a substance that *leads* the consumer to harm others? Alcohol, for example, can result in a loss of mental and physical function, but banning driving under the influence is sufficient. Alcohol does not "lead" someone to drive. Is it not sufficient to ban the harmful circumstance? Fred Foldvary ====================================================================== >From: Fred Foldvary >To: libprofs >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:27:38 -0500 (EST) > why most people - also freedom-loving people > - are not in favor of legalizing. Are they all stupid? > > No, but enough of them are. Government rules by propaganda and force. Most people fall for the propaganda, and then they only look at the surface (e.g. violence associated with drugs) rather than the deeper causes of problems. I don't think it is stupidity so much as ignorance. Fred Foldvary ====================================================================== >From: DRider@aol.com >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:15:11 -0500 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, george@dbms.com >cc: sbieser@deltanet.com, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, libprofs >Subject: Re: Drugs cause evil (was: More on guns) In a message dated 95-12-11 06:14:44 EST, kurt@wickman.pp.se writes: >drugs cause crime, I am surprised that anyone would deny that. Every poll taken among econonists on this issue results in an overwhelming call for legalization. Notable names include Nobel winners Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Frederick Hayak and most winners in the last 15 years. Yes, drugs "cause" some crime. But prohibition causes far, far more crime. The evidence is overwhelming. >Has it ever occurred to you to ask why most people - also freedom-loving people >- are not in favor of legalizing. Are they all stupid? Well, yes! The people most opposed to legalization are the least educated. Blue collar opposition is the strength of the drug war. The people who least understand the economics are the ones most supportive of the drug war. Review the luminaries who signed the Hoover resolution, and you will find many of the best minds in the country. But politicians won't flip to legalization until the polls call for it. And I'm still waiting for your response to my question -- should not violence-inducing alcohol be prohibited? Richard Rider ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 09:07:26 -0800 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso >From: sbieser@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) >Cc: libprofs At 12:50 PM 12/11/95, kurt@wickman.pp.se wrote: >Your arguments really strike at the most fundamental aspects of political >philosophy. It would probably take me a book to formulate the answer well. >Maybe >I'll write it someday. But not now. I think that the drugs issue can be >discussed without re-formulating fundamental beliefs. >Let me say only this. If people are "social animals" - which I think we >are - a >number of rules must be upheld (by unpartial authorities) to make it >possible to >live together in societies. These rules must be formulated from such >principles >that freedom for every individual is the biggest possible. But every rule >implies some loss of freedom for individuals or groups of individuals - >you may >not harm others, is one example that restrains power-hungry or sadistic people >in society. That's one way of looking at it. My preferred way is to look at society as a collection of individuals who voluntarily band together for mutual benefit, but who nonetheless retain certain basic inviolable rights -- to life, liberty, and justly-acquired property. (What constitutes "justly-acquired" takes some explaining so I'll set it aside for now.) Please note that a sadistic person's liberty does NOT include the right to harm others, because by doing so he violates THEIR basic rights not to be harmed, and well-formulated rights are non-contradictory. >If there were to be a chemical substance that would lead the consumers to harm >others, I think that it should be banned by the central authority. Alcohol has been well-demonstrated to "lead [its] consumers to harm others." Do you therefore believe it should be banned? There are to >me aspects of drugs that are tangential to this mythical harms-provoking drug. >This is not an answer to your questions, I realize that, but it is a more >general statement of my view on drugs than I have tried before in this >discussion. I realize that I might be the only one on the group that thinks in >this way. You are definitey in the minority on this one, although I must admit not completely alone. Unfortunately it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between those who are honestly opposed to drug legalization, and those who secretly agree with most libertarians but publicly support prohibition anyway because it is popular. > But I find one possible implication of your questions troubling - >though I am sure that you don't mean that: if someone is not 100 per cent in >agreement with me, his entire philosophy must be wrong or at least suspicious. No, I didn't mean to imply that. I was just wondering what sort of thought processes would conclude that prohibitionism is compatible with the idea of the minimal state. It is difficult for me to comprehend. Note, I am taking ca-liberty and sdlp off this mail-thread, because these are not supposed to be general discussion lists. If anyone remaining objects to getting this thread please let me know and I'll drop you on the next go-around. ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* Scott Bieser "Art is about making something out of nothing, Animaniac and then selling it." sbieser@deltanet.com -- Frank Zappa ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 09:07:40 -0800 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, George L Roman >From: sbieser@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) >Cc: kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, libprofs At 12:10 PM 12/11/95, kurt@wickman.pp.se wrote: >Freedom causes crime - not drugs. This is nothing but the most shallow thinking >you can meet in this highly problematic discussion. Freedom does not cause >crime, it is a high goal for most people trying to live together in a society - >freedom is, on the contrary, threatened by crime. Drugs cause crime, I am >surprised that anyone would deny that. The real issue here is a trade-off issue: >are the probable costs of crime following legalization of drugs higher than the >benefits of enjoying the freedom to trade drugs without police inspection? There >are more arguments in formulating the trade-off, but take this as the inprecise, >fundamental formulation. >Has it ever occurred to you to ask why most people - also freedom-loving people >- are not in favor of legalizing. Are they all stupid? Or what is the correct >answer to that question? Kurt, I believe George was applying the techniques of "irony" and "sarcasm" in his last posting. His real meaning was the opposite of what he seems to have said. But it is true that a free society offers greater opportunities for crime, at least among those not employed to enforce laws or defend the state. Those of us who champion freedom ought to recognize this, and be able to argue that the benefits of freedom outweigh the risks, or that there are ways of fighting crime which do not entail restricting essential liberty. I believe the reason most people are not in favor of legalizing is that they are not all that freedom-loving. They want the freedom to do the things they want to do, but wish to deny others freedom to do things that they find repulsive or strange, whether or not direct harm to others can be shown. So they readily accept arguments claiming drug use leads directly to violent crime, while ignoring evidence that it is the prohibition rather than the drugs themselves, or in combination with them, which cause most of the violent crime. ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* Scott Bieser "Art is about making something out of nothing, Animaniac and then selling it." sbieser@deltanet.com -- Frank Zappa ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:48:23 -0500 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >From: William Cross >Cc: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com Your concern about "small scale" crime increasing as a result of repeal does not take into account two factors: 1. The price of drugs will fall to a level similar to that prior to the "War". Therefore the average user will be able to purchase on the open market with "cigarette money". Therefore the end stage of drug abuse will resemble the wino not the gangster. 2. The danger to non-participants will instantly cease. No more theft (or robery) to support the habit. No more turf wars with non-participants gunned down in the cross-fire. No lives ruined by police using the WAR as an excuse. There is no question that the life of an addict is sad. However, how many other lives must we ruin? How much lower a standard of living must we all tolerate, just to "sweep the problem under the rug"? I believe that people intent on ruining thier lives now will use alcohol and that if all the now illegal drugs were made legal, the number of ruined lives would increase by only about 10% not 100% not 1000% as the fearmongers would have you believe. Ad Hominum note: I am a pharmacist trust me. :) ====================================================================== >From: Bruce Benson >Subject: drugs and crime >To: libprofs >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 12:37:32 -0500 (EST) I returned to my office today after being away for a few days, and found a long list libprof messages on drugs and crime. After reading them, I thought I should clear up a few misconceptions. First, I note that even some of the strongest voices for "legalization" accept the police claims that drugs cause crime. No doubt, for some heavy users, property crime (burglary, robbery, etc.) is the way that habits are financed. However, the magnitude of this relationship is grossly exaggerated by police and various law enforcement statistics. The statistics they usually cite involve the portions of people arrested, jailed, imprisoned, etc. who test positive for drugs. This figure is used to imply that as many as 60 (and even 80) percent of the crime committed is drug related. First, recognize that a substantial portion of this population has been arrested and/or convicted for a drug crime, not a property crime. A better statistical indicator would be, what portion of the people involved in property crime are drug consumers, but even this is misleading. For instance, studies of the temporal sequencing of drug use and non-drug crime suggest that non-drug criminal activity generally precedes drug use. A large-scale BJS survey of prison inmates found that approximately 3/5ths of the inmates who had used a major drug regularly had been arrested at least once for a non-drug crime before they consumed the drug. Similarly, a BJS survey of jail inmates found that more than half of the regular drug users were arrested for a non-drug crime an average of 2 years before their first use of drugs. Surveys are always suspect of course, but other evidence supports their findings, and beyond that, there clearly is reason to expect that a "causal" connection for crime to drugs exists (e.g., as income goes up more of lots of things will be purchased, including more drugs; as criminals learn how ineffective the state's criminal justice system is, they are less likely to be deterred from purchasing goods in illegal markets; as they begin to move in the criminal subculture they become exposed to the drug market). My recent book with David Rasmussen (The Economic Anatomy of a Drug War: Criminal Justice in the Commons, Rowman & Littlefield, 1994) discusses the evidence on the drug crime connection in considerable detail. For instance, we look at the arrest history of drug arrestees in Florida, and the conviction history of drug convicts in Florida, we report on a recidivism study for drug convicts, etc. All of the evidence suggests that perhaps 20 to 30 percent of the drug-using population actively engage in property crime, but that there is no strong drug-to-crime causal link. Heavy drug use by a criminal can change the nature of the crime (e.g., the need for cash makes robbery more attractive than burglary), but other factors (e.g., economic opportunities) are much more important determinants of crime than drug use, if it is a determinant at all. How can this be? Well, the fact is that drug users generally have non-crime sources of income (most work, many collect welfare, many have family support), and in addition, many heavy users can actually finance much of their habit by working in the drug trade itself (prostitution is another non-property-crime alternative). Furthermore, the vast majority of drug users are not heavy users. Addiction rates tend to be highly exaggerated. As with alcohol, most drug users are "casual" or "social" users. Addiction rates appear to be quite comparable for alcohol, cocaine, and heroin. Second, I want to point out one of our major findings. That is, that the criminalization of drugs itself "causes" crime. Many people recognize that this is true with regard to drug market activities (e.g., use of violence to enforce contracts, violent competition for market share), but there is an even more fundamental affect. Law enforcement resources are scarce, so there are trade-offs, and drug enforcement has a very high opportunity cost. We found that the 1984-89 run-up in drug arrests relative to other arrests in Florida was accomplished, in part, by a reduction in police efforts against property crime. The probability of arrest for property crimes fell as resources were reallocated to control drug markets, and property crime rose as a result. In fact, our statistical results suggest that every additional drug arrest over this period resulted in one more Index I crime. If the drug causes crime argument truly holds, of course, drug arrests should reduce property crime. Another opportunity cost of drug enforcement appears in prison statistics. About 12 percent of Florida's prison admissions were for drug crimes in FY 83-84 (about 1,600 admissions). By FY 89-90 drug admissions had risen 875 percent to over 15,000 (over 36 percent of admissions), and Florida had been forced to institute an early release program that reduced the average portion of sentences served from around 52 % to about 32 % (and resulted in several sensational violent crimes by people who were released early), leading to the political demands for a new get-tough crime policy and the state's current prison-building boom. Third, the question of why legalization is resisted if it makes so much sense is a complex one. First, of course, voters are rationally ignorant in the sense that they invest very little in determining the validity of the law enforcement claims that are so widely reported. Second, there is a very strong constituency for criminalization. There are the middle-class folks who do not want their kids to be tempted by drugs, and think that making them illegal is a way to deter such temptations (it may well be), and for whom, the cost of criminalization is perceived to be small: the heavy costs of criminalization are born by the poor whose neighborhoods see the vast majority of the drug-related crime and violence. The temperance supporters (e.g., various religious groups on the right and left) see this as a moral issue and not an economic one. Other groups can also be identified (see Mark Thornton's book on The Economics of Prohibition, University of Utah Press, 1991), but our research suggests that the most influential group is the law-enforcement establishment. Why? For one thing, the drugs-cause-crime argument serves as an excuse for their failure to control property crime. For another, the asset seizure laws make drug enforcement very attractive (our research suggests that a state law that says confiscated assets must go to the law enforcement bureaucracy that seized them - rather than to general funds, school funds, etc. - results in about a 60 % increase in drug arrests). I could go on about drug policy, but instead I will just recommend my book. I could also suggest to the "minimal-state" people that the presumption that the state should be responsible for crime control is not a very informed presumption. I have written about this too, however (e.g., in my book on The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State from the Pacific Research Institute, 1990), and I recently completed a book manuscript entirely devoted to the issue of "Privatization in Criminal Justice" for the Independent Institute, so I will let you read it when it comes out. Bruce Benson ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 09:38:22 PST >From: Tom Perrine >To: DRider@aol.com >Cc: kurt@wickman.pp.se, george@dbms.com, sbieser@deltanet.com, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, libprofs In a message dated 95-12-11 06:14:44 EST, kurt@wickman.pp.se writes: >> drugs cause crime, I am surprised that anyone would deny that. This can only be the most blatant of trolls. -- Tom E. Perrine (tep@SDSC.EDU) | San Diego Supercomputer Center http://www.sdsc.edu/~tep/ | Voice: +1.619.534.5000 Responsible adults raising self-reliant children to become responsible adults. What else do we need? -- ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 10:07:16 PST >From: chrish@xylan.com (Chris Hoogenboom) >To: sbieser@deltanet.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >Cc: libprofs Kurt .... this was probably not the best place to float a theory on the benefits of drug prohibition. To paraphrase your argument: "Drugs cause crime, the government is supposed to control crime, therefor the government must control drugs." I have seen many responses to your argument, all saying pretty much the same thing, which I would summarize as "Drug _prohibition_ causes crime. End prohibition and drug related crime will be reduced." You have not replied to this argument. Instead you say "It would probably take me a book to formulate the answer well.". This is a typical tactic used by politicians ... the the issue is very complex, will take lots of study, and is not easily understood by the ordinary citizen. Please do not treat us that way. Please tell us why you disagree with the statement "Drug _prohibition_ causes crime". Regards, Chris Hoogenboom ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:30:18 EST >From: JJUC79A@prodigy.com ( K S HARRIS) >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com >Subject: Clinician's Perspective I believe Richard Rider to be absolutely correct that the drug most harmful to the human body is clearly alcohol, and the most dangerous drug from a social perspective is clearly alcohol. (Amphetamines and nicotine tie for second in both categories.) I believe Rider is also absolutely correct in his position on the decriminalization of drugs. I say this as the director of both a mental health and drug clinic. The misuse of drugs is most truly destructive to the individual and the community, and communities have the right to address this problem. The question is: what sort of response? Fact-based education and fact-based persuasion is the only effective (and libertarian) approach to the drug problems of individuals; decriminalization is the only reasonable end to the violence of the "drug war." The trouble is that we have not only to educate drug users, but the ignorant public, where opinion is largely visceral, illogical, and out-right wrong. The public's opinion has been framed by hidden-agenda politicians. Although presently a government employee, ironically I have come to conclude that government should should be planning how to turn over treatment and education to the private sector. K.S. Harris, PhD (jjuc79a@prodigy.com) ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:30:11 EST >From: JJUC79A@prodigy.com ( K S HARRIS) >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com >Subject: Lancet Decriminalization Article Is anyone familiar with a recent article in the British medical journal "Lancet" that supports the decriminalization in Britain of marijuana? It was referenced in our local news-rag. Presumably it took the factual position that marijuana is not harmful from a medical point of view. (This in contrast to the fanciful distortions distributed by our own Partnership for a Drug Free America.) Thanks, K.S. Harris (JJUC79A@prodigy.com) ====================================================================== >From: Stephen_Cox@SANDMAIL >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:27:00 -0800 >To: sbieser@deltanet.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >Cc: libprofs Nothing whatever is wrong with discussing it, of course; it's interesting. But almost anything could "cause" an explosion of violent crime. A new kind of political or religious belief might "cause" fanatics to murder people. The closing of a technologically obsolete factory might considerably raise crime rates in a community in which a large proportion of people suddenly lost all income. But the principle of a liberal society is to punish crime, not religious or political beliefs or technological innovation--or the private use of substances. I don't think, though, that there's anything about drugs themselves that causes a lot of crime. An earlier correspondent's analogy with alcohol seems apt; some people get violent after drinking alcohol, but it's not a national crisis. What is sort of a crisis is the lengths to which some people go to GET drugs, and that's simply because drugs are so much harder to get than alcohol, and that's simply because of the laws against drugs. Stephen Cox ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: More on guns ... Author: kurt@wickman.pp.se at @UCSD Date: 12/10/95 10:56 AM Why am I a libertarian, since I don't share all your views? Because I believe in a minimal state - but among the things that the state shall do is to handle crime. If it can be shown that drugs cause an explosion of violent crime, I think it would be negligent to keep the issue out of the discussion. All the best Kurt Wickman ====================================================================== >From: Stephen_Cox@SANDMAIL >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:43:00 -0800 >To: george@dbms.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se >Cc: sbieser@deltanet.com, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, libprofs >Subject: Re[2]: Drugs cause evil (was: More on guns) So far, "causation" is being used only figuratively. There's nothing about either freedom or a drug that literally causes anything to happen. Each thing merely allows a certain range of behavior. The vast majority of people can live around drugs and not take them, just as they can walk into a friend's apartment and not steal his wallet if they have the chance. But some people do steal the wallet. That's their choice. Their covetousness was the cause of that choice. We don't ban money or wallets because they "cause" theft, though the criminal would probably say that he stole the wallet "because" he saw it lying there with money in it. Stephen Cox ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Drugs cause evil (was: More on guns) Author: kurt@wickman.pp.se at @UCSD Date: 12/11/95 12:10 PM Freedom causes crime - not drugs. This is nothing but the most shallow thinking you can meet in this highly problematic discussion. Freedom does not cause crime, it is a high goal for most people trying to live together in a society - freedom is, on the contrary, threatened by crime. Drugs cause crime, I am surprised that anyone would deny that. The real issue here is a trade-off issue: are the probable costs of crime following legalization of drugs higher than the benefits of enjoying the freedom to trade drugs without police inspection? There are more arguments in formulating the trade-off, but take this as the inprecise, fundamental formulation. Has it ever occurred to you to ask why most people - also freedom-loving people - are not in favor of legalizing. Are they all stupid? Or what is the correct answer to that question? All the best to you - and keep thinking about this Kurt Wickman (Sweden) ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:57:06 -0700 (PDT) >From: "Dave Garstang (DGarstang@GI.com)" >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Cc: sbieser@deltanet.com, covingtonc@aol.com, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, libprofs, DGARSTANG@gi.com > If there were to be a chemical substance that would lead the consumers to > harm others, I think that it should be banned by the central authority. Kurt -- Let me give this a try, since I have attempted (without success) to deal with this issue at home. My wife, a Democrat but otherwise a decent human being, resorts to this same argument as her last defense for Statist intervention in personal choice. My answer: It's already in there. There are an infinitude of things that might cause people to commit violence. Attempts to ban the -causes- of violence will never be complete. I stubbed my toe exiting my sunken living room; the pain led me to punch a hole in my wall. Do we need to ban sunken living rooms too? (Having to patch the drywall was sufficient punishment for me, I think!) But by simply banning the unacceptable act itself, rather than attempting to identify and ban every possible contributory factor, you've now covered ALL bases with ONE law -- as long as you disallow the excuse of voluntary diminished capacity. "The drugs made me do it" just doesn't wash in a Libertarian court of law, unless you can show that someone forced you to take the drugs against your will. You can't prevent all violence before it happens, unless you're willing to put all of us in straitjackets and feed us through tubes. But the market for a drug such as this would be self-limiting, so it could not grow large enough to become a significant problem. Few people would be tempted to try it; those who did would be quickly removed from society. No customers, no incentive for production, NO PROBLEM! OBTW: Put me down as someone who doesn't mind sincere questions and honest inquiry in this forum. If you ask, then -listen to the answers-, I welcome your input. - Dave Garstang (DGarstang@GI.com) Card-carrying Libertarian at last! ====================================================================== >From: MrJeffChlg@aol.com >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:39:54 -0500 >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com >Subject: Drugs & Evil; Another Perspective I have monitored this ongoing debate regarding drug laws, and their propensity to cause evil in American society. I must assume some risk here, and add a personal note. I am a former so-called "recreational" user; my former experimentation never impacted anyone. I will no longer touch the stuff, however, not for any health or similar reason, but because I now realize that current drug laws facilitate, indeed encourage, the victimization of honest citizens. My last drug event began with my voluntary participation with two others. After one left, the other coerced me into ingesting far more and driving away from my home. I didn't know where we were going; I didn't know what was going to happen to me. The only certainty was that I was about to become a victim for the first time in my life. While driving, I was praying that a cop would pull me over and save me, even though I was higher than I had ever been and would certainly face charges. The purpose of this kidnapping turned out to be a drug deal. While I was terrified, I survived. This criminal believed correctly that he could victimize me simply because I had voluntarily begun taking drugs that evening. He also knew that I was smart enough to realize that, being so high, the police would not have viewed me as a victim, but as a participant. This protected the criminal, and further victimized me. Nevertheless, I regret not going to the police that evening. Afterward, my brother convinced me not to go to the police and file kidnapping charges. He argued the police would simply take advantage of me, and the criminals might retaliate. It was a compelling argument. Therefore, my friends, I KNOW that the drug laws cause evil and undermine my personal liberties. Jim ====================================================================== >From: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:33:47 +0100 >To: chrish@xylan.com (Chris Hoogenboom), sbieser@deltanet.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >Cc: libprofs Chris - I do believe that drug prohibition causes crime. But - to formulate it simple - I think we would move into a much worse situation, if legalized.I might be wrong, and you might also be wrong. The cost if I am wrong is bearable, but the cost if you are wrong, might be considerably higher. This leads me to the conclusion that the discussion must go on - this might be the right place to do it, since I share most of my political views with libertarians and I find that having "a common language" makes a discussion more efficient. All the best Kurt Wickman ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 15:05:23 -0700 (PDT) >From: "Dave Garstang (DGarstang@GI.com)" >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Cc: chrish@xylan.com, sbieser@deltanet.com, covingtonc@aol.com, Ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, DGARSTANG@gi.com > Chris - I do believe that drug prohibition causes crime. But - to formulate > it simple - I think we would move into a much worse situation, if > legalized.I might be wrong, and you might also be wrong. The cost if I > am wrong is bearable, but the cost if you are wrong, might be considerably > higher. Kurt -- Hate to jump in when you addressed your reply to Mr. Hoogenboom (who is quite capable of replying for himself), but our experience here in the USA with drug prohibition disproves your assertion. This is not just an intellectual exercise for us. We are living it right now, and it is NOT bearable. The problem is that you can't really open this door "just a crack". As soon as you say it's OK to prohibit things that may be used to cause harm, even things that are MOSTLY used to cause harm, there is an enormous pressure to expand the list "just a little bit more", and soon you have the insanity that we are living, here, today, in our so-called "Land of the Free". - Dave Garstang (DGarstang@GI.com) Card-carrying Libertarian at last! ====================================================================== >From: Fred Foldvary >To: libprofs >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 19:36:02 -0500 (EST) > I think we would move into a much worse situation, if legalized.I might > be wrong, and you might also be wrong. > Kurt Wickman Nobody knows what will happen to crime if all drugs were legalized; all we have is conjecture. But suppose theft did go up. So what? I'd rather have more honest theft than the confiscation going by the name seizure & forfeiture. If I hear an intruder at night, I can call the police (some would prefer to shoot). But what if the intruder *is* the police and the police are ransacking the house? Honest thievery can be protected against; how do we protect ourselves from the police? Fred Foldvary ====================================================================== >From: w.mcelroy@genie.com >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 03:25:00 UTC 0000 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Cc: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, covingtonc@aol.com, george@dbms.com, libprofs, mcpherso, sbieser@deltanet.com, sdlp There is nothing inherent about drugs that causes crime. Cultivating a pound of cocaine need not be much more expensive than cultivating a pount of coffee. Indeed, the two products come from the same area of the world, with the same growing conditions and many of the same processing requirements. Although coffee is highly addictive, you do not see people mugging, burglarizing, etc. for a cup of it. Drugs do not cause crime. Criminalizing drugs and making them ridiculously expensive causes crime. Besides, the idea of drugs being intrinsically evil is an odd one. Certainly, we only mean the 'drugs' that government says are evil. I go strictly by what I've read, but there was a great deal evidence that Ecstacy, for example, had extraordinary potential in psychotherapy. Before it was banned, it was being used extensively in that capacity. Making something illegal doesn't make it evil. I think people want to control the consumption of drugs for the same reason they want to control sexual expression. Imposing your views on other is often more attractive than having to co-exist with theirs. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Wendy McElroy (Canada) ====================================================================== >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 19:34:18 -0500 >To: libprofs >From: Ejan Mackaay Wendy McElroy (Canada) writes: >Imposing your views on other is >often more attractive than having to co-exist with theirs. Quite true, but puzzling all the same. Why would it be so attractive to impose views? And why is it threatening to co-exist with those holding different views? At what distance does it cease to be so? EJAN MACKAAY (Canada) ====================================================================== >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:36:45 -0500 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >From: William Cross >Subject: Evil == Drugs >Cc: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com I see from your posts of 11 December 1995 that you believe that moral values can be ascribed to chemicals. Moral values must be ascribed with care and they are usually reserved for actions. (Ocassionaly one refers to people, however I have never MET anyone who personally claimed to be evil). While those people who are habitual drug users sometimes are visably non-productive, when well supplied with thier drug of choice they are no threat to others. Is you motivation to tidy up the streets? Keep the problems out of sight? How will our children learn about the reality of drug abuse if someone keeps hiding it? Drug abuse is not a problem for the police but for the dustman. Bill ====================================================================== >From: Covingtonc@aol.com >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:01:49 -0500 >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se, sbieser@deltanet.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >cc: libprofs Kurt, My point is not about 100% agreement. I said you need to believe in the core axiom of a political philosophy. If you do not, you are not (one). By the way, I like the phrase "all the best." I think it's one of the best ways to end a letter (email). I believe you have a good chance of changing people via friendly, open persuasion. I also believe you have next to zero chance of changing another by scorning and abandoning them. No harm Kurt, but you're not yet a Libertarian. And your argument is still based on the premise that humans are born evil and/or stupid. Bad philosophies of life and bad political structures make bad people. Legalize drugs, and I'll never touch 'em. I have other values to pursue. You'd be surprised how many billions there are just like me. All the best, Craig ====================================================================== >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 08:41:43 -0800 >From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com >Subject: drug (war) costs > I do believe that drug prohibition causes crime. But - to formulate it > simple - I think we would move into a much worse situation, if legalized. > I might be wrong, and you might also be wrong. The cost if I am wrong is > bearable, but the cost if you are wrong, might be considerably higher. [...] I wonder what Kurt would consider worse than twice as many murders as before prohibition got serious, active recruitment of children into crime, corruption of law enforcement at all levels, erosion of the Bill of Rights, stifling of research into promising drug therapies, release of violent felons to make room for ailing grannies ... Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher@netcom.com ====================================================================== >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 08:45:02 -0800 >From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) >To: ca-liberty@shell.portal.com >Subject: drug laws Dave Garstang writes: > But by simply banning the unacceptable act itself, rather than attempting > to identify and ban every possible contributory factor, you've now covered > ALL bases with ONE law -- as long as you disallow the excuse of voluntary > diminished capacity. "The drugs made me do it" just doesn't wash in a > Libertarian court of law, unless you can show that someone forced you to > take the drugs against your will. Or misinformed you about the drugs' effect. Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher@netcom.com ====================================================================== >From: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 22:35:55 +0100 >To: Covingtonc@aol.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se, sbieser@deltanet.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp >Cc: libprofs To everyone that has reacted on my views on the drug problem - thanks a lot. I think that I have a better understanding of the US libertarian view on drugs. Some people were also nice enough to recommend books, where I can follow a full argumentation on the entire problem. I have tried to answer most of the responses that have added some new aspect to the discussion. It has proved to be time-consuming, actually more time than I have for the moment, which tells me that I must back down for now from the discussion. All the best to you all Kurt Wickman ====================================================================== >From: akors@sas.upenn.edu (Alan Kors) >To: w.mcelroy@genie.com >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 20:22:15 -0500 (EST) >Cc: kurt@wickman.pp.se, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, covingtonc@aol.com, george@dbms.com, libprofs, mcpherso, sbieser@deltanet.com, sdlp w.mcelroy@genie.com wrote: > There is nothing inherent about drugs that causes crime. Cultivating a > pound of cocaine need not be much more expensive than cultivating a pount of > coffee. Indeed, the two products come from the same area of the world, with > the same growing conditions and many of the same processing requirements. > Although coffee is highly addictive, you do not see people mugging, > burglarizing, etc. for a cup of it. Drugs do not cause crime. > Criminalizing drugs and making them ridiculously expensive causes crime. This seems exactly on target, leaving aside the question that even if drugs did "cause crime," presumably in the way that alcohol "causes drunk driving," one still could punish the "crime" of the few without infantilizing and having the state make lifestyle decisions for the crimeless many. Not only does the criminalization of drugs cause crime through the dysfunctional infusion of criminalization-added cash into its illegal distribution, but it also corrupts whole police forces and governments, moving them even further away from their primary mission, to wit, the provision of security of life and property. Further, it makes a mockery of parental efforts--in neighborhoods of easy drug money--to convince children that honest labor and effort are the routes to success. As a matter of principle, self-regarding behavior being no concern of the state, and as a matter of utilitarian policy, the increase of crime and corruption that arises from the outlawing of drugs (and the inability to enforce otherwise reasonable laws concerning children and drugs), our current drug policy cannot stand up to either political or consequential criticism. > Besides, the idea of drugs being intrinsically evil is an odd one. > Certainly, we only mean the 'drugs' that government says are evil. I go > strictly by what I've read, but there was a great deal evidence that > Ecstacy, for example, had extraordinary potential in psychotherapy. Before > it was banned, it was being used extensively in that capacity. Making > something illegal doesn't make it evil. The drug of "alcohol," last time I was in Washington, seemed to flow quite freely. >I think people want to control the consumption of drugs for the same reason >they want to control sexual expression. Imposing your views on other is >often more attractive than having to co-exist with theirs. That is the motivation of many people, alas, and one does have to make individuals understand that no one should have such power over them. There are, however, other well-intentioned people convinced that the criminalization of drugs somehow protects children and, as a separate issue, that it somehow makes society safer. With the latter group, one may still argue the issues of how to protect children without infringing on adult voluntary choice, and of how to reduce crime and corruption through the legalization rather than the criminalization of drugs. Cheers, Alan ====================================================================== >From: JJGoode@aol.com >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 01:53:52 -0500 >To: DRider@aol.com >cc: sdlp, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se >Subject: Re: Drugs cause evil (was: More on guns) kurt@wickman.pp.se >>drugs cause crime, I am surprised that anyone would deny that. DRider@aol.com >Yes, drugs "cause" some crime.... Mr Rider, While I generally see you as my guiding light on Libertarian issues, I respectfully have to disagree with this bit of your response here. I don't see how any drugs can "cause" any crime, anymore than poverty "causes" crime. While they both, admittedly, have a substantial motivating influence, only people "cause" crime to occur. I might also add that I don't believe people are necessarily "stupid" in having a differing view on the Libertarian anti-drugwar plank, ...perhaps "inattentive", or "ignorant" are more appropriate words. Discussion should always be welcome on issues, it is *only* this which provides for *open* deliberation of ideals, hence the modern era of mailing lists and newsgroups (loud applause!). Aside from those comments, I'm in agreement with your stand. Jack J. Goode KE6YQQ JJGoode@aol.com ====================================================================== >From: w.mcelroy@genie.com >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 06:35:00 UTC 0000 >To: mackaay@droit.umontreal.ca >Cc: libprofs Ejan Mackaay writes Why would it be so attractive to impose views? I think it is no coincidence that the cry for freedom comes usually from minorities aka the oppressed. I think those in the majority are usually comfortable imposing views because they find the perameters of what is likely to be quite acceptable. Eg. A democrat rather than a republican in office, not an anarchist. When the minority ceases to be so (if not in numbers, than in the extent of power), it typically shows no more tolerance than the enemy it criticized. I don't know where this trait in mankind comes from. Perhaps genetics, with the evolution of tribal feelings by which killing anyone strange had a survival value. (Of course, not to the stranger.) Being a fanatic for liberty -- I don't know how else to describe someone who maintains an optimistic 'Smash the State' position in the face of facts -- I quite understand the lure of imposing views on others. Unfortunately, one of the views I would impose is that people should (peacefully) do and think what they will. Worst luck! Cordially Wendy McElroy (Canada) ====================================================================== >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 09:02:27 -0500 >To: libprofs >From: Ejan Mackaay >Subject: Re: Drugs cause evil >I think it is no coincidence that the cry for freedom comes usually from >minorities aka the oppressed. I think those in the majority are usually >comfortable imposing views because they find the perameters of what is >likely to be quite acceptable. Eg. A democrat rather than a republican in >office, not an anarchist. When the minority ceases to be so (if not in >numbers, than in the extent of power), it typically shows no more tolerance >than the enemy it criticized. Could it have something to do with the economics of information, i.e. the cost of handling unfamiliar as opposed to familiar views ? (People discriminate against unfamiliar faces relying on stereotypes, erring of the safe side and finding it too costly to get better information (Gary Becker on Discrimination); with more interaction, the cost-benefit trade-off changes.) EJAN MACKAAY ====================================================================== >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 09:42:37 -0500 >To: Ejan Mackaay >From: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca (Jan Narveson) >Cc: libprofs Regarding this (and with an added Hooray for McElroy's perceptive comment): >Wendy McElroy (Canada) writes: >> Imposing your views on other is >>often more attractive than having to co-exist with theirs. >> >Quite true, but puzzling all the same. Why would it be so attractive to >impose views? And why is it threatening to co-exist with those holding >different views? At what distance does it cease to be so? > >EJAN MACKAAY (Canada) I suggest, colleagues, that the desire to threaten those with different views, which is very likely related to some fairly fundamental defense mechanism, is a desire that in itself, if used only by individuals on their own behalf, wouldn't be much of a problem. It's when there's an Agency on hand, equipped with the power to force everyone to do its will, and responsive to irresponsible people at polling booths, that these desires becomes major threats. It's in the same category as the desire to get something for nothing, which is largely, if not quite uniquely, pandered to by governments. __________________________________________________________________________ Jan Narveson (Professor) Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1 (519) 888-4567-1-2780# (from touch-tone); or 885-1211, ext. 2780 (via switchboard); FAX (519) 746-3097 Home: (519) 886-1673 (answering machine) e-mail: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca ====================================================================== >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 10:13:54 -0500 >To: libprofs >From: Ejan Mackaay Jan Narveson is no doubt right when he writes: >It's when there's an Agency on >hand, equipped with the power to force everyone to do its will, and >responsive to irresponsible people at polling booths, that these desires >becomes major threats. It's in the same category as the desire to get >something for nothing, which is largely, if not quite uniquely, pandered to >by governments. Whatever drives individuals to have such a preference, it is innocuous so long as no coercive power is available to impose it on others. Which brings us back to considerations of the rule of law: what institutions can we design, and what convictions do we convey to our children to go along with them, in order to make coercive power unavailable for purposes such as these. Indeed the proper focus. EJAN MACKAAY ====================================================================== >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 10:25:17 EST >From: Steven Horwitz >To: Liberty Professors >Subject: kids and social tolerance With a four year-old son and another child due any day, I have more than a little interest in the issue of how we convey an attitude of tolerance to our children. It seems to me that one good way to do it is to break down the false distinctions the state frequently makes between different kinds of behavior. Wendy alluded to the not-very-big differences between legal "drugs" and illegal ones. I think one way to deal with kids is to say that people make decisions all of the time about how to live their lives, what chemicals to ingest, who to have sex with, etc.. All of those activities have consequences for one's physical health and one's social life, but it is the chooser who is in the best position to make those decisions responsibly. I think one good lesson to get across is that when others (via the state) step into that process it substitutes an inferior judgment for a better one and weakens the link between choice and responsbility. One of the best things we (libertarians or not) can teach our kids is that individuals know best what they or their families should be doing and how they should do it. But along with that right to choose comes the willingness to accept the full consequences of those choices. One day my son is going to ask me about my past drug use and I hope I can tell him the truth. To go into Nancy Reagan mode would be beyond hypocritical. However, I hope I can convince him that the difference between smoking pot and taking Tylenol is only a matter of degree not a difference in kind. Taking Tylenol alters one's chemistry and can produce harmful side effects. The point is to make informed choices responsibly and accept the consequences. If we do that, I think our kids will be more likely to allow others to make the choices they deem best and not feel the need to force choices on them. Steven Horwitz Eggleston Associate Professor of Economics St. Lawrence University Canton, NY 13617 TEL (315) 379-5731 FAX (315) 379-5819 EMAIL shor@music.stlawu.edu ====================================================================== >From: sdcox@ucsd.edu >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:49:00 -0800 >To: mackaay@DROIT.UMontreal.CA, jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca >Cc: libprofs >Subject: Re[2]: Drugs cause evil I think you're right about this, Jan. Non-governmental solutions to aggression are often healthy: aggression may be expressed in art, in sports, in working hard to reveal the folly of the enemies of a good cause, etc. One of the major differences among classical liberals is rooted in the difference between optimistic and pessimistic views of people. Those of us who can't imagine that aggression would be a problem in a libertarian society are clearly optimists; those of us who see aggressive dispositions as unremovable are clearly pessimists, at least on that score. Madison spoke of people's natural tendency to "vex and oppress" one another (see my reflections in the current "Liberty" on this). Swift, echoing La Rochefoucauld, wrote: We all behold with envious eyes, Our equal rais'd above our size; Who would not at a crowded show Stand high himself, keep others low? I love my friend as well as you, But would not have him stop my view; Then let me have the higher post; I ask but for an inch at most. (I don't think Swift was a classical liberal, but the verses are a propos, and they were influential in giving aggressive impulses a fair shake in classical-liberal considerations.) The pessimists, of course, see libertarian political and social structures as means of dealing with aggression, even of using it against itself by means of checks and balances, limitations of power, and so on. Stephen Cox ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Drugs cause evil Author: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca at @UCSD Date: 12/13/95 9:42 AM [...] I suggest, colleagues, that the desire to threaten those with different views, which is very likely related to some fairly fundamental defense mechanism, is a desire that in itself, if used only by individuals on their own behalf, wouldn't be much of a problem. It's when there's an Agency on hand, equipped with the power to force everyone to do its will, and responsive to irresponsible people at polling booths, that these desires becomes major threats. It's in the same category as the desire to get something for nothing, which is largely, if not quite uniquely, pandered to by governments. Jan Narveson (Professor) ====================================================================== >From: DRider@aol.com >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:39:44 -0500 >To: JJGoode@aol.com >cc: sdlp, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se >Subject: Re: Drugs cause evil (was: More on guns) In a message dated 95-12-13 01:54:03 EST, JJGoode writes: << Mr Rider, >While I generally see you as my guiding light on Libertarian issues, I >respectfully have to disagree with this bit of your response here. >I don't see how any drugs can "cause" any crime, anymore than poverty >"causes" crime. While they both, admittedly, have a substantial >motivating influence, only people "cause" crime to occur. A good point, but for most outside the tightly reasoned Libertarian circle there is acceptance that a product that "causes" one to lose one's senses and commit an criminal act "causes" (or at least contributes to) the crime. The fact that such a drug is voluntarily taken makes any such defense in court irrelvant (in our libertarian opinion and increasingly the opinion of the courts). But it is a factor in crime. People under the influence of certain drugs may be more likely to commit a crime. I am willing to concede that point, but not in any way mitigate the criminal's culpability. And, needless to say, the prohibition causes far more crime while not even keeping the drug out of people's hands. >I might also add that I don't believe people are necessarily "stupid" in >having a differing view on the Libertarian anti-drugwar plank, ...perhaps >"inattentive", or "ignorant" are more appropriate words. Discussion >should always be welcome on issues, it is *only* this which provides for >*open* deliberation of ideals, hence the modern era of mailing lists and >newsgroups (loud applause!). I made an error in getting off the list and communicating with our ersatz Swedish libertarian one-on-one (responding to his personal email to me). In that email I explained that I did not like the perjorative term "stupid", but clearly blue collar people (who most strongly support the drug war) are by and large less educated and/or less intelligent than "professional" people who (again, by and large) are much more prone to support some form of drug legalization. He was the one who used the term "stupid", and I did not clear up that language in my public response to his email. I now stand contrite and corrected. Richard Rider ====================================================================== >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 12:27:48 PST >From: jwallner@xylan.com (John Wallner) >To: Covingtonc@aol.com, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se, mcpherso, sbieser@deltanet.com, sdlp >Subject: purity >Cc: libprofs Craig: >My point is not about 100% agreement. I said you need to believe in the core >axiom of a political philosophy. If you do not, you are not (one). >[...] >No harm Kurt, but you're not yet a Libertarian. Hold on there, friend. Kurt is very much a libertarian. As a candidate and activist, I have spent much time and money searching for others who are libertarians, but didn't know it. They don't necessarily share your "core philosophy" any more than I do. But, like me (and Kurt), they believe in small government. That makes them libertarian. And, as soon as they give me $35.00, that makes them Libertarian. After all that effort, it would be silly to drive them away from us with a purity test. People believe in small government for different reasons. Not all of these reasons are philosophical in nature. (Me? I got involved to meet smart women.) Certainly argue with Kurt, but let's not return to purity testing. Cheers, John Wallner jwallner@netcom.com Libertarian Congressional Candidate, Ca. 44th District, 1990 San Diego Liaison, Genis for Senate Campaign, 1990 Elected Member San Diego County Libertarian Central Committee, 1991 Libertarian Congressional Candidate, Ca. 49th District, 1992 Field Coordinator, Rider for Supervisor Campaign, 1992 Advisor, Bishop for Assembly Campaign, 1992 Elected Member San Diego County Libertarian Central Committee, 1993 Field Coordinator, Rider for Governor Campaign, 1994 Campaign Manager, Hoogenboom for Congress Campaign, 1994 Advisor, Hostler for Assembly Campaign, 1994 Advisor, Green for City Council Campaign, 1994 Founder and President, San Diego Libertarian Gun Owners' Caucus All Around Nice Guy ====================================================================== >To: jwallner@xylan.com (John Wallner), libprofs >From: "Aeon Skoble" >Date: 13 Dec 95 18:28:40 CST6CDT >Subject: Re: purity Must disagree with Mr. Wallner. Although he correctly cautions against orthodoxy and purity tests, simply believing in "smaller government" is not the definition of a libertarian. Suppose we met someone who said "I think the government should be limited to one function only: making sure that everyone paid their fair 75% share of their income in taxes, to be redistributed among the less fortunate." Or someone who said "government coercion should be limited to making sure that no one makes or sells or buys an artwork with a message disapproved of by a 51% majority." These people are for "smaller government," but hardly libertarian. The Turner Diary folks are also for a government that is smaller than the present one, but they're not libertarian. There must be a defining characteristic of a libertarian if the term is to have any meaning (this is partially how the old word, liberal, got corrupted). Placing primary emphasis on individual liberty, for example, or the non-initiation of aggression axiom, or something. But it does have to be something. Aeon Skoble ====================================================================== >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 15:07:32 PST >From: bruce@magma.COM (Bruce Schoenleber) >To: sdlp >Subject: Prohibition I happened by this quote in a tag line, it seemed apropos to current discussions. "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." -Abraham Lincoln (1809-65) U.S. President. ====================================================================== >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:03:02 -0800 >From: slagle@sgi523.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) >To: kurt@wickman.pp.se >CC: sbieser@deltanet.com, kurt@wickman.pp.se, Covingtonc@aol.com, mcpherso, ca-liberty@shell.portal.com, sdlp, libprofs ::kurt@wickman.pp.se writes: > If there were to be a chemical substance that would lead the > consumers to harm others, I think that it should be banned by > the central authority. The key word here is "lead". No chemical substance can lead anyone to do anything. Chemicals are not volitional, people are. If harm results from the use of some chemical by some person, then that person is to blame, not the chemical. On that ground, it is the specifically harmful behavior that is to be prohibited, not the chemical, and not even the possession and use of the chemical. All chemicals, even the most harmful and dangerous, have SOME beneficial uses, so we must be ever-vigilant against the practice of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as all prohibitionary schemes necessarily end up doing, even when some actual good can be demonstrated in isolation. Don't punish all the innocent people who use chemicals in ways that do no harm to others. Ban criminal behavior, by all means, but don't pretend you can cure any problems by excommunicating inanimate and non-volitional objects and substances. Punish the guilty, not the inanimate or the innocent. =Mark ---- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088